Of all the things that confuse me (there are easily 3k this morning) this stumps me most: When did we decide that saving an 80-year-old's life is worth sacrificing a child's? Or that the value of their lives are exactly comparable? I could've sworn we'd agreed to something else.

I’ve often said that nothing is normal about Julian Assange’s case. Here’s my list of the top 10 least normal aspects, strictly on the logistical side of monitoring the extradition proceedings (this is not to mention the many substantive issues that are also far from normal).

1. The judge’s stubbornly persistent refusal to acknowledge that NGO observers are professionals and have an important role to play (separate to that of the general public) in ensuring open justice, and refusal to grant us access to be able to do our jobs properly.

2. The constantly shifting goal posts in gaining access to the public gallery, and arbitrary restrictions on numbers in all 3 courts where proceedings have been held. On any given day, it’s impossible to predict how many will be let in and when, necessitating very early queuing.

3. Receiving conflicting information from the court about remote access, including being accredited to the Cloud Video Platform and then having that access revoked in September. The same thing seems to have happened to us again for 4th January.

4. After unbelievable difficulty getting in, what we actually observed was a small screen on the other side of a large room. It was often impossible to tell who was who, and I could only follow properly as I had the lawyers’ voices memorised from February (when I could see them).

Franklin Templeton Update

1. Franklin Templeton (Trustees) - six schemes under winding up - have announced dates of voting to seek consent of Unitholders to wind up. Voting begins 26Dec20 at 9am

2. Supreme Court will continue to hear the case - Next hearing on 9th Dec

(1/n)

Q1: What is the voting about by FT
Ans: To validate/approve decision of Trustees to wind up 6 schemes - both Guj & Knataka Courts said Unitholder consent is mandatory

FT has now agreed to do this and this vote will take ur consent to either wind up the scheme or NOT.

(2/n)

Q2: What are the options in this Voting?

Ans: This will be the first voting. (There will be a second vote, I will explain in thread later)

In this Vote, you will have two options
YES - Wind up Schemes
No - Do not wind up, open them up

You have to choose one option

(3/n)

Q3: Should I vote YES or No?

Ans: There is fatigue in investors as their money is locked up for in these tough Covid times. It's been now over 7 months

Most investors take it as fait accompli to vote YES
FT is exhorting investors to vote YES as the best way ahead

(4/n)

Q4: But how should investors vote? YES or No?

Ans: YES will lead to wind up at a pace defined by winder (the person winds up the scheme). This will lead to best value realisation of underlying assets

NO- Will lead to immediate access to money but not best value for you

(5/n)

Five years ago this week in a 6-3 decision, the United States Supreme Court declared that its prior 2012 ruling in Miller v. Alabama applied retroactively, thereby requiring that hundreds of former life-sentenced children like myself be resentenced.

I recall that day being one of subdued jubilation tempered by cautious optimism, having absolutely no confidence in how the sentencing judge or the parole board would respond to this High Court mandate. Would I be given an opportunity to live a meaningful life…

...or would I be condemned to prison for the rest of my life? Terrifying questions that had no immediate answers.

On June 27, 2017, I was resentenced to a term of 30-to-life. Following a successful parole hearing in August, on October 10, 2017, after being disappeared from society for over three decades, I walked out of prison on parole for life.

Sadly, in the four-year interim between the Miller and Montgomery decisions, my mother lost her battle with cancer. She was my last surviving (immediate) family member. For me, the Montgomery decision serves as a painfully cruel reminder that “justice delayed, is justice denied.”